Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 316 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of ROBERTSHAW -FULTON CONTROLS COMPANY ( AMERICAN
THERMOMETER COMPANY), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT No. 9, PETITIONER
Case No. 14-R-1826.-Decided April 03, 1948
Mr. Alexander Arnold, of Youngwood , Pa., and Messrs, Richard
Kahdeman and S. E. Hurst, of St. Louis , Mo., for the Employer.
Messrs. Cody Quinn and Larry Connors , of St. Louis, Mo., for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Fred Otten , of St. Louis, 'Mo., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at St. Louis,
Missouri , on December 3, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer.'
Except for his ruling limiting the scope of intervention , the hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 3 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Company, a Delaware corporation,
organized in October 1947, now operates a plant at St. Louis, Mis-
' The petition in this case named American Thermometer Company as the Employer.
At the hearing it appeared, however, that this firm had since been absorbed by the Robert-
shaw-Fulton Controls Company . The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended
to show the correct name of the Employer.
2In view of the non -compliance of United Steelworkers of America , herein called the
Intervenor , with the filing and registration requirements of Section 9 (f) and ( h) of the
amended Act, the hearing officer refused to permit the Intervenor to present evidence or
examine witnesses on any issue other than the question of "contract -bar." On February
17, 1948, the Board reopened the record for the purpose of affording the Intervenor an
opportunity to be heard on all issues in the case . However, on March 24, 1948 , the Inter-
venor signed a stipulation , waiving its right to further hearing, and none has been held.
3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members [ Houston , Reynolds , and Gray].
77 N. L. R. B., No. 43.
316
ROBERTSHAW-FULTON CONTROLS COMPANY 317
souri, involved in this case, where it manufactures heat control equip-
ment. Prior to October 1947, this plant was operated by American
Thermometer Company, which has been merged with Robertshaw-
Fulton Controls Company.
At its St. Louis plant the Employer receives annually materials
valued at more than 1 million dollars, of which approximately 90
percent is shipped from points outside the State. The annual output
of this plant is valued at more than 1 million dollars, of which ap-
proximately 90 percent is shipped to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
United Steelworkers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is
a labor organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
representative of employees of the Employer because of an existing
contract between the Employer and the Intervenor.
Since 1939 the Intervenor and the" Employer's predecessor have
entered into a series of annual contracts covering substantially all
production and maintenance employees at the plant involved. On
April 23, 1946, the Employer's predecessor and the Intervenor ex-
ecuted a contract expiring on September 30, 1947.4 The instant peti-
tion was filed on August 21, 1947. The Intervenor pleads as a bar
to this petition a new agreement between the Intervenor and the
Employer's predecessor, alleged to have been executed on August 21,
1947,5 the same day that the petition was filed, which contract covers
the employees whom the Petitioner claims to represent. Where, as
here, an expiring contract contains no automatic renewal clause, a
new contract executed at any time prior to the expiration of the old
contract cannot in itself operate to bar a petition filed prior to the
4 This contract did not contain an automatic renewal clause.
'On that date the contract was initialed by representatives of the parties . Formal
signatures were attached on August 28, 1947. It is not clear from the record whether the
action taken on August 21, 1947 , was sufficient to bind the parties to the contract, or
whether the initialing of the contract on that date was subject to ratification . However,
in view of our finding below that this contract is not a bar even if legally executed on
August 21 , it is not necessary to decide that point.
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expiration date of the old contracts We find, therefore, that the
instant proceeding is not barred by the contract of August 21, 1947.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer in
the toolroom of its St. Louis plant, including tool and die makers and
their apprentices, machinists, and tool and gauge grinders.
The Employer opposes severance of the toolroom employees from
the more inclusive plant-wide unit, but does not otherwise object to
the composition of the unit proposed by the Petitioner.'
The toolroom is in a separate enclosure within the plant building, and
all the employees in the proposed unit report to the toolroom, where
they do the bulk of their work. They are under separate immediate
supervision at all times. There is virtually no interchange of per-
sonnel between the toolroom and the rest of the plant. The employees
in the toolroom fabricate tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, and gauges. The
rates of pay in the toolroom range from $1.655 per hour for machinists
to $1.985 per hour for tool and die maker leadmen. These rates are,
with one exception," substantially higher than those paid other em-
ployees of the Employer. Tool and die makers are required to serve
an apprenticeship of 5 years, and the Employer requires that current
applicants for a job as tool and die maker have 10 years' experience.
The record does not disclose the extent of the training or experience
of the machinists or the tool and gauge grinders. There are no ap-
prentices in those two classifications.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the toolroom employees are
an identifiable, homogeneous group with interests separate from those
of other plant employees. They have not had an opportunity to demon-
strate in a Board election whether or not they desire separate repre-
sentation.
We have found appropriate in the manufacturing industry a unit
of tool and die makers and other employees engaged, as in the instant
case, in the fabrication of tools and dies in a separate toolroom or
e Matter of Don Juan, Inc., 71 N. L R. B. 734; and Matter of American White Cross
Laboratories, Inc., 60 N L. R. B 1148.
' As already stated, the hearing officer did not permit the Intervenor to be heard on the
unit issue , and the Intervenor has declined to avail itself of the opportunity for further
hearing given it by the Board
8 Electrician-Class A receives $1 835 per hour. The next highest rate outside the tool-
room is $1535 per hour for Departmental Leadman, which is 13 cents less than the
lowest toolroom rate.
ROBERTSHAW-FULTON CONTROLS COMPANY 319
machine shop.9 In those cases we found that all the employees in
the toolroom or machine shop were a craft group. In the instant
case, it is not clear from the record whether any of the toolroom em-
ployees other than the tool and die makers have definite craft skills.
However, in view of the segregation and community of interest of the
toolroom employees, and in view of the fact that the tool and die
makers, who clearly have craft skills, furnish a craft nucleus for the
toolroom group, Nye find that the toolroom employees may, if they so
desire, constitute a separate unit, notwithstanding the history of col-
lective bargaining on a plant-wide basis 10 However, we will not
make any unit determination until we have first ascertained the desires
of the employees involved.
We shall, accordingly, direct an election among all employees in
the toolroom in the Employer's St. Louis plant, including tool and
die makers and their apprentices, tool and gauge grinders and machin-
ists, but excluding supervisors. We shall not place the name of the
Intervenor on the ballot because it has not complied with Section 9 (f)
and (h) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Robertshaw-Fulton Controls
Company, St. Louis, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Fourteenth Region, and subject to Sections
203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 5, among the employees in the voting group described
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by International Associa-
tion of Machinists, District No. 9, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
° See, e . g, Matter of General Motors Corporation , 74 N. L. R. B 18; Matter of The
Beach Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 510
"While the Inteivenor bargained with the Employer 's predecessor since 1939, the
Employer , itself, has had contractual relations with the Intervenor in its St. Louis plant
only since the latter part of 1947 , when it took over the operations of the plant.